Interim Order 4

Order Details: Other
Pdf Text: CS No. 100194 / 2019 John Energy – H. V. Corporation Exh.20 1 / 3
Further Examination in chief of plaintiff witness Ajit Ramesh
Singh on oath by Adv. Amit Sharma , for plaintiff.
Adv. Vasant Rajnale present for defendant.
1) Affidavit now shown to me bears my signature. Its
contents are true. It is already marked as Exh.20. I am filing
following documents on record. Same be allotted Exhibit mark.
Exh.28 : Original Board Resolution Dt. 26.03.2019.
Exh.29 : Copy of Quotation through Email Dt. 17.07.2018
( admitted by defendant ).
Exh.30 : NDT certification given by the defendant ( admitted
by defendant ).
Article A : Photocopy of Purchase Order Dt. 19.07.2019.
Exh.31 : Proforma Invoice Dt. 19.07.2019
( admitted by defendant ).
Exh.32 : Tax Invoices with E-way bill of defendant.
Exh.33 : Printout of Email Dt. 21.11.2018.
Article B : Photocopy of the said E-mail Dt. 23.11.2018.
Exh.34 : Defendant’s legal notice Dt. 20.12.2018.
Exh.35 : Office copy of reply Dt. 11.01.2019 by plaintiff.
Exh.36 : Office copy of Plaintiff’s letter Dt. 25.02.2019.
Exh.37 Defendant’s reply Dt. 09.03.2019.
Court observation : It is made clear to both parties that,
documents are marked as Exhibit (in accordance with contents
from evidence affidavit) for identification purpose.
Both sides are at liberty to prove and disprove the contents of the
documents, in accordance with various provisions, pertaining to
Commercial Courts Act, Code of Civil Procedure, Indian
Evidence Act and Information Technology Act.
Further examination in chief is over :
Cross-examination by Adv. Vasant Rajnale
2) I am aware of all the communication that took place
-- 1 of 3 --
CS No. 100194 / 2019 John Energy – H. V. Corporation Exh.20 2 / 3
between the parties. I am not aware of the telephonic
conversations. At the time of the transaction, I was working as
Vice President of the plaintiff company. At the time of transaction
Mr. Jignesh Bhatt was the Purchase officer.
3) Before the transaction, I had not seen the Re-
certification Report. Witness volunteers that, it was not provided
by the defendant. As per my knowledge, we have paid Rs.
7,50,000 /- ( Seven Lakh Fifty- thousand only) to the defendant as
advance payment.
4) It was on 16.10.2018, ONGC asked us to stop using the
pipes supplied by the defendants. We have received notice to that
effect from ONGC. We have not annexed said notice on record at
the time of filing of the Suit. We have not used any third party
Inspection regarding the pipes. Witness volunteers that, the third
party Inspection Report was provided by the defendant
themselves. During 16.10.2018 to 15.01.2019, the Goods were
lying in our yard. Said yard is covered yard. Whether said yard is
covered from all sides, I say that, I have not visited that yard. We
had issued notice to the defendant regarding damaged used drill-
pipes. I have not obtained valuation certificate regarding damaged
used drill-pipes.
Question by defense lawyer : Whether ONGC permitted you to
use the used drill-pipes.
Answer by witness : The ONGC permit us to use the used drill-
-- 2 of 3 --
CS No. 100194 / 2019 John Energy – H. V. Corporation Exh.20 3 / 3
pipes of premium class with proper American Petroleum Institute
(API) Certification.
5) In the present case I have not annexed the API
certificate. Witness volunteers that, it is not required in present
case.
6) I have not annexed any documents regarding the penalty
imposed on me by the ONGC for defective pipes. Witness
volunteers that, they have been penalized by ONGC after 2 years.
7) I am aware about the criminal proceedings initiated by
the defendant against the plaintiff. I will not be examining other
witness.
Cross-examination is over.
Re-examination : declined
ROAC
MUMBAI
Dt. 03.01.2024
(Vijay S Hingne)
District Judge, Court Room No. 31
City Civil & Sessions Court,
Mazgaon, Mumbai
-- 3 of 3 --